Monday, October 26, 2009

~First, I need to say that the law of YHWH was never designed to save anyone. It is by the grace of Yahshua, the Messiah (Jesus Christ) that we (those who turn from breaking the law) are saved. The Messiah's death on the cross did NOT abolish one jot or tittle from the law (Matthew 5:17-18). It did NOT give us permission to sin (sin is transgression of the law). In fact, you can't have grace without the law! If there is no law, then there would be no grace. If Yahushua abolished the law, there would be no more sin (sin is transgression of the law). If there is no more sin, we would not need "grace". Here is an analogy:~Lets say you are visiting a friend in an unfamiliar city. You are driving at 55mph and pass through a school zone sign while looking for your friend's street. You continue to go 55 in a 25mph zone. You get pulled over and ticketed.

You appear before the judge. The judge looks at the law and finds you guilty of breaking the law.Then your friend (who happens to be the judge's son) steps in and says, "Judge, I know my friend broke the law. He knows he broke the law. He was new to the area and was ignorant of the law. He assures me that he will be more careful to watch for the speed limit signs in the future. Let me give grace to my friend and pay his fine for him". And so, your friend pulls out his wallet and pays the court $200.00.~This is similar to what the Messiah did at the cross. He did not abolish the law. He paid the penalty for breaking the law.~Now, lets say you are visiting the same friend and you now think that since your friend is the judge's son and he got you out of paying the ticket the first time that the law in that town does not apply to you. You think that you can speed as much as you want. Do you think the son will continue to pay your fines?~What if you appeared before the same judge for the 6th time and you said something like, "yes, I broke the law, but this law must not apply to me because I always break it and never have to pay a dime." Do you think the judge will let his son continue to pay the fines for you? Do you think because you know the judge's son, that you are above the law no matter what or that the law does not apply to you? (The penalty being of having to appear before the judge and the judge continually fining you should prove that the law does apply to you. Also, the fact that the Judge's son continually has to pay your fine should also prove to you that the law still applies to you).~Romans 6:14-15For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.What then? shall we sin (transgress the law), because we are not under the law, but under grace? YHWH forbid.~So, What does Paul mean, "We are not under the Law?~Romans 6:14-15For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.What then? shall we sin (transgress the law), because we are not under the law, but under grace? YHWH forbid.~When Paul says things like "we are not under the law, but under grace". He is not saying that the law does not apply. Notice the word "but" used here. "But" means, "on the contrary".~Finish these statements:I'm not cold, but ___________.I'm not poor, but ___________.I'm not healthy, but _________.~If I said, "I am not cold, but hot", that would make sense. If I said, "I am not cold, but rich", that would not make sense. What ever I say after "but" has to be contrary to the first part of my statement.~Is "grace" contrary to "law"? NO! "Grace" is the same as "mercy" or "pardon". Just as the analogy of the speeder having his ticket paid for, "grace" was the time where the son paid the fine. "Grace" is not contrary to "Law"! "Grace" is contrary to "Penalty of the law"! In the above verse, "under the law" is the same thing as being under the penalty of the law (sin having dominion over someone).~Romans 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? YHWH forbid: yea, we establish the law.~When I found out that there were some 'cults' running around keeping the law of YHWH, I wanted to prove through the bible why they were wrong ("Prove all things" 1 Thessalonians 5:21) So I bought several speckled notebooks and titled them with things like, "Is the Sabbath for Today?" "Is Tithing for today?", "Is the law abolished?" etc. I then started in Matthew and read the gospels and started to write down all the verses for or against those topics. I found that that the Messiah was undoubtedly pro-law. Then I got to Acts, and saw that the disciples were still keeping the law after Jesus died on the cross. Then I got to Romans and after the first couple of chapters I was convinced that Paul too was pro-law. Then I started reading further and it appeared that Paul was against the law (contrasting his statements in Romans 2 and in Acts). Then later I saw verses from him that were pro-law again. After I got through Romans, I was honestly beginning to think Paul was a little schizo. It wasn't until I got to Peter that I realized why I couldn't understand Paul.~Peter says that Paul’s epistles are hard to understand for those who don’t know the scriptures (at the time I was researching this topic, I, like most Christians, was very ignorant of the law and the Old Testament).~2 Peter 3:16-17as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;~The word translated “wicked” is the Greek word “athesmos” which means lawless or one who breaks the law. Here is Strong’s only definition:1) one who breaks through the restraint of law and gratifies his lustsSo Peter here is saying, Paul’s epistles are hard to understand for people who are untaught in the rest of the scriptures… (then right after he says)….Beware of the lawless.When reading Paul’s epistles, it sometimes appears that he is pro-law, and sometimes appears that he is anti-law. This is why the Jews were so confused about Paul’s writings. They even wanted to make sure Paul was still keeping the law and told Paul to prove that he still keeps the law by making offerings for some vows, which Paul did to show the Jews that he still kept the law (Acts 21:21-26).~Anyway since it is clear that Paul’s epistles are not clear and appear to go either way, how did I come to the conclusion that Paul was actually pro-law?~1. Peter says that it is hard for them to understand for those who don’t understand the rest of the scriptures. I have been to many Christian churches. I went to a Baptist church a while back. There was about 50 older adults there (average age probably 45). When my dad said that there were other Sabbaths besides the weekly Sabbath not one of them knew that. When I made a few other comments about the law, not one of them had a clue what I was talking about. Once, I was talking to a Christian girl that been to church all her life (she was in her 20s) and she didn’t know who Abraham was. Just recently, I was talking to a woman (about 47 years old) she has been going to church almost all her life. She didn’t know that David came after Moses. I would easily say that they do not know “the rest of the scriptures”. But they think they know Paul. They will quote real fast, “we are not under the law but under grace”. But Peter says that it is hard for those who don’t know the rest of the scriptures. Just go to any Christian chat room that allows a multitude of people from a multitude of religions and see which ones know the OT better. Or start going to a Baptist or Pentecostal or Catholic Church (pick one…I haven’t found one that knows much of the Old Testament). Even though I trust no one and I am not affiliated with any church, if I knew no scripture but just this one verse from Peter and I had to blindly pick who had the correct interpretation of Paul’s epistles by looking at Peter’s comments, I would have to pick the people who know the law and the OT.~Plus, right after Peter says “his epistles are hard to understand…” he says, “beware of the lawless”. Hmmm…looks like he wanted us to beware of the ones that broke the law.~Plus, show me in the “rest of the scriptures” (the OT) where the law was going to be abolished before the millennium reign. (The “rest of the scriptures” does say over and over and over again that the law is forever .)~2. Paul’s Pro-law scriptures are very solid. Just take the first 2 chapters of Romans for example. While some of the verses that appear to be anti-law are “difficult to understand”, they can be explained MUCH easier than the very solid scriptures that are pro-law.~3. Yahushua's comments, YHWH’s words from the OT, and basically the rest of the scriptures would be impossible to ignore.~4. The Acts of the Apostles would be impossible to ignore (it is like Paul would be preaching one thing, but doing another)~5. The actions of Yahushua which is a very productive way of teaching and Yahushua lead his life as an example (1 Peter 2:21). Yahushua kept all the commandments (including the Sabbaths and Holy Days).~6. People that knew the law, loved the law. The scriptures talk about how wise and great the law is and how other nations would look upon the wise law and wonder how they got such a great and wise law.~7. The law makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to abolish a law like a law that separates Lepers from healthy people. I do believe that YHWH has a reason for every law (even if we can’t figure the reason out).~8. Also, it doesn’t make sense for any lawmaker to make a law, and then when his son lives his life with out breaking the law, for that law to be abolished. If G.W.Bush was king and he had a son that died at 33, without a criminal offense, would that be your defense in court for breaking the law? Would you say, “Your Honor, this law was fulfilled by G.W. Bush’s son; therefore the law no longer applies to me”. That makes much less sense to me than going in front of the Judge and saying, “Yes, I have broken the law, and I have repented” and then the son of the King steps in and pays your fine. (Paying one’s penalty for a crime proves that the law is in place).~9. There is no NT law. Some just count all the laws mentioned in the NT and say that these are our new laws. For one, who made up that rule? Does it make sense to say that the King’s son has to repeat all the law for it to stay in effect? And since the NT was not put together until many years after Yahushua’s death (and canonized much later than that) what laws would be in place until one could get access to the whole NT? (These same people who claim to just count the NT laws usually over look the command to keep Passover 1 Cor 5:7-8 not to mention the instructions of Yahushua)~10. It does not make since for YHWH to establish a law, then abolish it, then re-establish it again [like the feast of Tabernacles (Zec 14:16-19) and the Sabbath (Isaiah 66:23)].~11. The feasts and Sabbaths were set up to point to Ha Mashiach and his redemption plan of YHWH’s people. Since Ha Mashiach has not fulfilled all these feasts and the shadow of the Sabbath, it does not make since for His people to stop practicing these. Also, we were told to keep the Passover in 1 Cor 5:7-8 and in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.~12. If YHWH’s law is abolished, then why are we and all the other nations having so many curses? How can someone suffer the penalty for breaking the speed limit (a traffic ticket) if the speed limit no longer applied? The fact that someone can suffer the penalty for breaking a law proves that the law applies to that person (Do you think that it is possible that the reason why our farmland's topsoil is depleting is because we do not practice the land sabbath or the reason why our money is becoming more and more worthless is because we are using "unjust weights and measures" or the reason why we have so much evil, crime, and fear of terrorism in our country is because we do not enforce YHWH's laws?).~from biblelaw101.com~Blessings,Amanda

My Shelfari Bookshelf

My New Favorite Poem

The Wreckers of Homes

The Prince of the legions of darkness was sitting ensconced on his teetering throne,Awaiting an army of specialized demons whose job was the wrecking of homes.They were due to report on the war they had waged, and soon they came canteringhither;From the four winds they came, the demons and imps, from yon and afar and fromthither.“Report!” barked the Prince. One by one they came forward-and told of the homesthey had wrecked, wantonly, shamelessly splitting them up with a pitiless,morbid effect.“I drove the wedges,” said Jealousy slyly, a shriveled black imp with a glare,“I invaded their thoughts with satanical skill. It’s a cinch when I break up a pair.”: Oh, yeah!” sneered Mistrust, “I am far more effective. I sit on their shoulders andwhisper.I perch there, for instance, and say to the wife, “He’s a teller of tales, is your mister.”Next I say he’s a liar, then say he’s unfaithful, then I say: “You just watch him a bit,”And before very long she sees all kinds of things, And I prod her to tell him ‘I quit.’”“Ha! You are not half as successful as I!” Infidelity said with a grin,“You are merely a Doubt, but I am The Deed, I’ve got medals to prove that I win.”“Ho, ho!” laughed Old Alcohol, veteran demon, “You’d seldom have won but for me!I take special delight in breaking up homes,” he chuckled with hideous glee.Up piped an imp, Carnal Courtship by name, “If it were not for me...” (and he cackled)“If I had not got them all started off wrong, you big shots would feel mightyshackled.”Boredom and Laziness, Incident Nagger and Cruelty all took their turn.Spite made a hit, and Hatred another, with tales that would make your ears burn.“Did you get them ALL?” roared the Prince from his throne. They were allshamefaced, and suddenly still. They shriveled in silence and trembled withterror, appearing dejected and ill.“Report!” the Prince thundered. “What have you to say?” One quivered, “You simplydon’t knowWhat it’s like in some homes. We are demons of darkness and simply can’t getthrough The Glow.”“What glow?” screamed the Ruler. “We don’t know just what,” said the imp with atremulous grin,For one thing, they start off the day with a prayer – and that kind, well, it’s hard to getin.”“Pshaw!” said the Prince. “It is true,” countered jealousy. “O you don’t know howI’ve tried.I have pounded their ears. I have battered their brains, but I had to get out e’re I died.The moment I come to the husband or wife they call on the One – you know Who –And He comes, and I haven’t a chance in the world! In that case, Prince, just whatwould you do?”“And I, sir,” said Hatred, “have neither a chance, not a ghost of a chance I say,When a fool keeps whispering to his wife, ‘I love you more every day!’”“You can’t say that I haven’t tried,” pouted anger. “Sometimes I’ll even get in;And just when I think I am winning the battle, they jump up and call me a sin.”“I,” said Old Laziness, lolling around, “If Hatred can’t do it, why bother!For with Love in the way, those husbands and wives do nothing but slave for eachother.”“And I,” mumbled Boredom, “I know Who’s at fault, it’s that FOE Who again isalive!They sing about Him and they talk about Him, and I haven’t a chance to survive.”Carnal Courtship crouched low so the prince of the ranks would forget that he evenwas there.He spied him in spite of it. “Carnal,” Prince roared, “Why did you not tempt everypair?”“I tried!” quivered Carnal, “but what can you do? Some won’t even bite. Somerepent,And the Enemy comes and He chases you out; and, sir, when HE sends, you areSENT!”“Are there many homes left where we haven’t a foothold?” the prince of thespecialists queried.“Quite a few,” sighed the imps. “They are simply impervious. They have left us allweakened and wearied. Those marriages last, O twenty-five years! It’s acinch that they last for life.They get harder and harder and harder to wreck – those homes where the husband andwifeHave Yahushua at the head, and they all pray together, are submissive and loving and true:And frankly, we’ll tell you, to break up that kind is more than we demons can do!”